Oh, Sure, Now Congress Is Serious About Asking NSA About Surveillance On Americans

from the about-freaking-time,-goodlatte dept

For many, many years, Senator Ron Wyden has been directly asking the US intelligence community a fairly straightforward question (in his role as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee): just how many Americans are having their communications swept up in surveillance activities supposedly being conducted on foreigners under the FISA Amendments Act (FISA being Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act). Wyden started asking way back in 2011 and got no answers. His continued questioning in 2013 resulted in Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lying to Congress in a public hearing, which Ed Snowden later claimed was a big part of the inspiration to make him leak documents to the press.

Just last month, we noted that Wyden had renewed his request for an accurate depiction of how many Americans have had their communications swept up, this time asked to new Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats. Unfortunately, for all these years, it's basically felt like Senator Wyden tilting at a seeming windmill, with many others in Congress basically rolling their eyes every time the issue is raised. I've never understood why people in Congress think that these kinds of things can be ignored. There have been a few attempts by others -- notably on the House Judiciary Committee -- to ask similar questions. Almost exactly a year ago, there was a letter from many members of the HJC, and there was a followup in December. But, notably, while there were a number of members from both parties on that letter, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Bob Goodlatte, did not sign the letter, meaning that it was unlikely to be taken as seriously.

Suddenly, though, it seems that the ins-and-outs of Section 702, and how the "incidental" information it collects on Americans is used has taken on a much wider interest, following President Trump's misleading suggestion that President Obama tapped his phone lines, and some Trump supporters trying to twist typical 702 surveillance to justify those remarks. Either way, if that leads people to actually look at 702, that may be a good result out of a stupid situation. And, thus, we get to this surprising moment, in which Goodlatte has actually sent a similar letter to Coats (along with ranking member John Conyers) asking about the impact of 702 surveillance on Americans. And since (for reasons that are beyond me) Reuters refuses to link to the actual source materials, you can read the full letter here or embedded below.

The letter demands an answer by April 24th. And, yes, it's notable that Goodlatte has signed on, because Section 702 is up for reauthorization at the end of the year, and if Goodlatte is not on board with reauthorization, then the NSA is going to have some difficulty in getting it through.

You have described reauthorization of Section 702 as your "top legislative priority." Although Congress designed this authority to target non-U.S. persons located outside of the United States, it is clear that Section 702 surveillance programs can and do collect information about U.S. persons, on subjects unrelated to counterterrorism. It is imperative that we understand the size of this impact on U.S. persons as our Committee proceeds with the debate on reauthorization.

The letter then even points to Coats' response to Wyden during Coats' confirmation hearing that he was "going to do everything I can to work with Admiral Rogers in NSA to get you that number." Of course, back in December, it was said that the intelligence community might finally deliver that number... in January. And it's now April. Still, with Goodlatte finally taking an interest in this, it's a sign that the NSA can't just coast by and continue to completely ignore this.

Reader Comments

You were doing really go there....

until you had to equivocate about Trump being wrong in his tweet.

So the Obama admin was using the NSA to get transcripts of conversations from members of the Trump campaign, but since that wasn't actual old fashioned wire tapping, like actually tapping the wires, then Trump's lying amirite?

The thing this entire episode shows us is that the NSA is spying on EVERYONE, and the Obama admin used that for political purposes and this is DANGEROUS.

To agree with you in spirit. I sure don't want Trump spying on his political enemies through the NSA either.

AND is it blatantly OBVIOUS that the Obama admin created the new surveillance sharing rules so they could barf out transcripts of conversations far and wide to guarantee they would be leaked. Super unethical, and the ONLY reason for their last minute rule change.

You, and Wyden are right that this spying is bad. But Trump being Trump has no bearing on whether it should be stopped cold. The answer to "should the spying stop" is an unequivocal "YES".

Re: You were doing really go there....

"So the Obama admin was using the NSA to get transcripts of conversations from members of the Trump campaign, but since that wasn't actual old fashioned wire tapping, like actually tapping the wires, then Trump's lying amirite?

The thing this entire episode shows us is that the NSA is spying on EVERYONE, and the Obama admin used that for political purposes and this is DANGEROUS."

Like Trump, you too are missing the important thing that normal people refer to as "evidence."

Don Wyden Quixote

It's highly probable that the NSA is just a phony 'shell' organization designed to fool foreign powers into thinking the U.S. has some huge, fantastic super hi-tech intelligence outfit listening to everything worldwide.

Have you ever personally seen hard "evidence" that the NSA really exists ??

Besides, Trump is now only the U.S.President' with full legal access to every classified record & secret that exists in the government -- so how the heck would he now know anything about secret surveillance ??

Ron Wyden's approach just needs another 150 years to show good results. Just give it some time... some other Senators are starting to come around.

Re: Don Wyden Quixote

Re: Re: Don Wyden Quixote

Sorry bro, you're the one babbling.

Obviously OP's main point is, "You, and Wyden are right that this spying is bad. But Trump being Trump has no bearing on whether it should be stopped cold. The answer to "should the spying stop" is an unequivocal "YES"."

...but all you seem to want to do is to drag the conversation off point with your basic-b!tch, partisan hackery.

Re: Re: Re: Don Wyden Quixote

This is pathetic, we are talking about shutting down a system that monitors foreign agents for very important intel, all because that system uncovered multiple white house admins contacting and doing business illegally and secretly with amongst others Russian spies.

How the hell did America get to the stage that because the president has been found to be involved in treasonous acts that now the system that found him out must be shut down...if anything i would say it needs to be strengthened.

And what American people are being caught with this 702 bill not the average person no they have absolutely no reason to contact Russian officials or spies do they, and not politicians as they are American politicians they would not be doing anything wrong would they ...damn this is so crazy and i hope that the country grows a spine and strengthens this law that allows monitoring of amongst others Russian spies.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Don Wyden Quixote

...we are talking about shutting down a system that monitors foreign agents for very important intel... ...DERRRRRP (i.e., the entire rest of what you wrote)..."

Well you're right about one thing, this is pathetic.

First, NO ONE - not Binney, Drake, Snowden, EFF, ACLU, or even Greenwald - is talking about shutting down legitimate surveillance. So please stop embarrassing yourself by suggesting that is the case. Either you're incredibly misinformed, lamely attempting to propagandize (yeah, I'm talking to you TLAs), or your just dumb.

Second, if American presidents were ever going to get prosecuted for treasonous acts (like, I don't know, allocating billions of taxpayer dollars to their corporate buddies by illegally invading a country that posed no physical threat to the United States), then many would have already be doing life in a federal prison.

Third, your "what American people are being caught with this 702 bill" line of reasoning is a belligerent combination of the "nothing to hide" argument (an argument that has been completely debunked btw) and conspicuously ignoring the fact that the powers granted under the 702 bill (along with all the other illegitimate/illegal/unjust violations of the 4th Amendment) can and will ALSO be used to crush legitimate dissent (not to mention, will be used for domestic corporate espionage and however else the small group of people in possession of everyone's secrets seeks to personally benefit from them). ...So, NO, you effin' brainiac, it's not the foreign spy surveillance that everyone is concerned with - it's the fake oversight, warrantless, domestic mass surveillance cancer in our society that is damaging our collective calm.

Your proposition that the warrantless spying (and indefinite storage of that data) without probably cause, with little-to-no effective oversight, on every single American citizen/business, is that it is for the purpose of "keeping us all safe" is so insanely unlikely to be true, that I have to assume you saying so is either based on a vested interest in promoting that belief - or some form of mental retardation.

Re: You were doing really go there....

So the Obama admin was using the NSA to get transcripts of conversations from members of the Trump campaign, but since that wasn't actual old fashioned wire tapping, like actually tapping the wires, then Trump's lying amirite?

Trump explicitly stated that Trump Tower was tapped, and that Obama was personally responsible. He was not referring to the Obama administration when he said "bad (or sick) guy", because the administration is not a guy.

He did not say anything about incidental data collection, either; he very clearly implied that it was targeted at him, Candidate Trump.

The "he was referring to surveillance by the Obama Administration general" excuse is something the Trump Administration came up with later to make the very stupid things he said sound less stupid.

Re: Trump explicitly stated that

`

Jeeez -- this was a casual Tweet from Trump, not a formal National Security Position Paper.

Trump is notorious for broad, imprecise, bold, off the cuff statements. Trump-Haters routinely castigate him for sloppy word choice and syntax --but on this Tweet the Haters suddenly want to interpret Trump with extreme precision on word choice. Totally hypocritical by the Haters.

Here's the Trump tweet:

> " Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism! " — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017

The general term "wires tapped" was even in quotes -- but the Haters somehow determined (with absolute certainty) that the term could ONLY mean 1920's style physical connections to actual telephone wires (by Obama personally).

Just amazing that all the Trump-Haters could read Trump's mind and know exactly what he meant, even though he repeatedly refuted their self-serving interpretation!

Re: Re: Trump explicitly stated that

So people should assume by default Trump is either babbling and/or lying when he says something, and treat what he says accordingly?

In your focus on 'wires tapped' and the weird idea that people think Obama personally installed the surveillance(seriously, who is saying that?) you miss the point Thad was trying to make.

First, Trump says that his communications in Trump tower were tapped. Not Trump Tower in general that just so happens to include him, his communications.

Second, he says that Obama did it. Not the 'Administration', not the 'Obama Administration', Obama, implying that Obama personally ordered it done.

Unless you want to go back to the 'empty blather' bit the tweet seems pretty clear in saying that Obama ordered his communications tapped, something for which I have seen no evidence presented to date, making it a blatant lie.

Re:

Don't bother with the Congressional bloviating. This occurs on a regular basis and everyone involved knows it means only one thing. Reps will bitch and moan, then reauthorize the bill overwhelmingly. SSDD

Over a year isnt a mistake.

The remarks wouldnt be justified, except it has now come out that for over a year the incidental collection of others was going on without the proper procedures taking place. Also, susan rice on multiple occasions went after that information? Did I misread the news from multiple sources beyond fox news?

Re: Over a year isnt a mistake.

Re: Over a year isnt a mistake.

Yes, Susan Rice, the National Security Advisor, did her job as National Security Advisor, when examining perfectly legal surveillance and incidental collection, which the National Security Advisor does.

Go learn something, and preferably not from a guy who believes Pizzagate is real and date rape doesn't exist.

Re: Re: Over a year isnt a mistake.

The constitutionality of the law behind the surveillance is highly questionable. The legality of the surveillance itself is unknown - not enough details are public as to how the information was collected. The devil is in the details.

You're entitled to your own opinions but you're not entitled to your own facts.

"It's not that we think you broke the law that worries us... it's the fact that you didn't Need to."

It's even crazier than that actually. I can't recall who said it originally, but when the whole NSA thing broke one of the responses was along the lines of how it was less worrying that what was being done was illegal than that it might very well be legal.

That the laws have been twisted to such a degree that mass, indiscriminate spying on the american public might very well be within the laws, despite what I imagine most people would think the laws would say on the subject.

Meh

This will either blow up or get hushed up, depending on how the intelligence community sways. Yes, obviously everyone in the US gets spied on - and since that is illegal, the previous administration could either rely on our allies to spy on us and give us the information (not illegal)* or get a secret FISA court approval on questionable grounds and proceed to unmask and declassify the information so it could be widely disseminated and leaked for political purposes.* we do the same for them

No, it wasn't "wiretapping" since no wires were involved, but it's pretty plainly functionally indistinguishable. Oh, and of course Obama wasn't involved at all, only the people he appointed to his cabinet like Susan Rice and other officials to be named. He was too busy golfing, obviously.

Leading from behind has the benefit of providing lots of fall guys between you and the underside of the bus.

Re: Meh

"Yes, Susan Rice, the National Security Advisor, did her job as National Security Advisor, when examining perfectly legal surveillance and incidental collection, which the National Security Advisor does."

So, you are saying that it would be fine for the current National Security Advisor to do the same thing to say, Barry Obama? I'm sure his name comes up a lot in international conversations, so incidentally collecting conversations involving him, unmasking the names involved and sharing the contents with over a dozen government agencies should be no issue, right?

Yeah, since she was just doing her job to do any less than the same thing now would be wrong. You know, because National Security.

Re:

And once you've gone to the trouble of becoming aware of the reality of the situation, the obviousness of it all becomes somewhat overwhelming. I now find myself in a near constant state of disbelief as to how, yet again, the public is being duped into supporting their "leaders" actions when those actions are so obviously not in the public's best interests. Again. Doh!

I very much agree with what you've written. However, rather than advising people to "stop reading their newspapers", I'd recommend they instead read them for the insight they offer as to how the oligarchs/plutocrats are currently conspiring - as their newspapers/TV provide an excellent window for deducing/extrapolating/reasoning their probable motivations (i.e., what they're currently up to). It's not a perfect science, but it can prove useful (not to mention, hilarious - as their propaganda is truly terrible - only matched by how terrible is the general public's critical reasoning).

Here's some tips for getting started:

For a very basic overview as to how the corporate press is used to propagandize for the plutocrats best interests (over the public's) you can watch this video which outlines the main points in Chomsky's, Manufacturing Consent (skip to 2:30 for a description of the 'propaganda model').